Before I started watching Star Trek, I had heard about it on the Big Bang Theory. The way it was talked about, I was expecting a franchise with very airtight and complex lore. In reality, it’s kind of a muddled mess. And really, it’s better the creators don’t worry too much about continuity, why let continuity get in the way of a good story? It doesn’t make sense that half the cast of the original series had encountered Trelane before but in the end, does it really matter?
Anyway, fans of big franchises who keep track of all the lore and act as though it’s all consistent, put way more thought into continuity than the creators.
The big problem with Trek, at least for me, isn’t the continuity issues or not-entirely-hard-science plots. It’s the lack of internal consistency between series. Not in plot points, but in attitude and mood, and what ‘Trek’ is supposed to represent. It’s not supposed to be space drama with a bunch of immature shits running around with scifi tech. It’s supposed to be an imagining of a better future, where humanity has come together and gotten so cohesive and nice that they don’t even use money in their own economies any more. The drama and action is supposed to come from things going awry or other external forces, not humans being just as shitty as they are now IRL. That doesn’t mean the franchise has to avoid dark topics or stories. DS9 is great and does just that.
It’s depressing when it’s just random scifi with a coat of Trek paint instead of a better version of humanity facing problems.
The last actual Star Trek show was The Orville. The more recent ones have all followed the action sci-fi route, not asking the big questions.
Though I did enjoy Lower Decks.
Maybe we have regressed so now the better us are worse then when Trek started.